Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[GISMYS]

I doubt it. Not His style.

Post the scripture please, and who supposedly wrote it.

And The Bible is not The Constitution.

The far right evangelical entitlement to legislate how people live has ended in this country.

Do notice those who reject the far right are not telling them how to live their personal lives.

I don't care what you doubt. Post your points.

Iben, no one cares here what you think. You have no points.

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, E Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

 

[Ibentoken]

And both are spread between heterosexuals in far, far greater numbers.

Stop the silliness, please.

Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of venereal disease than heterosexuals because they are much more promiscuous.

No proof, so I will simply note that if true, the number of incidents makes those of the homosexuals insignificant.

Heterosexual fuck like rabbits. You know that.

AIDS was first discovered in America among gay men. Your butt buddies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?


Wow....

Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.

Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on. Wannabee faggots, you know.

Calling someone who is debating so-called "gay marriage" a homosexual is standard operating procedure for libturds, diaper lord.

Now you know you are lying.

It is the far right tards, the reactionary loons, and the funny anarcho commies who say that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Religious freedom and civil rights would prevent forcing religious institutions from performing any marriage that would go against their conscience or the their religious beliefs. You can always go to a judge.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

Or you could go to one of the many churches that has abandoned their religious precepts in order to suck up to worldly interests and chase public popularity.

It's not like there's a shortage of people in the world willing to pander to delusions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is bigotry. You want it to not be.....but it is.

Time for you to catch up. The rest of us have waited long enough.

You don't understand. The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry. The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards. You don't, nor should you.

Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.

Silly reactionary Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.

Step along.

 

[Ibentoken]

Poor pitiful confused creatures. It's a shame what's happening in America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the libturd modus operandi. "We don't like that" or "we don't approve of that" automatically translates into "we must outlaw that" in their minds.

Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.

However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.

No, that isn't the American way. At least it wasn't until quite recently. That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl. It's actually the Stalinist way. You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal. I have no desire to tell you how to live. You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.

An anarcho commie like you certainly does believe in making others do want you want.

 

[GISMYS]

And Pharisees came up to Him(JESUS) and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, E Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh, sex in all of it's forms is "animalistic behavior". That includes hetero-sex.

GOD'S WORD SAYS==◄ Hebrews 13:4 ►
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. WE ARE TO LIVE HIGHER THAN BITCH dogs!!!

Does the bible really refer to "BITCH dogs"?!?!?!?!?


Wow....

Probably not, since the phrase would be redundant, the correct definition of "bitch" being "female dog".

 

[Ibentoken]

You don't understand. The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry. The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards. You don't, nor should you.

Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.

Silly reactionary Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.

Step along.

I really don't care who you have sex with. The problem is when you make it my business by forcing me to accept it against my religious Liberty in my Constitution. Go fuck yourself.

 

[TheJedi]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It does not need to be codified by the Church to be recognized by the State. Therefore, there is no reason to force a Church to officiate gay weddings since any Judge or Mayor can do it. There are also plenty of Churches that do officiate gay weddings for those gay couples that are religious.

So, really, this thread is yet another in a long list of non-starters that have been posted as of late. Nowhere have I heard of a legal challenge to a Church that refuses to host gay weddings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No social experiments in school. Teach.

Agreed. When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things. I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.

What you think is immaterial to the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Notice how the latent homosexuals on the far right get all hwat emotionally when they discuss this.

Pop23, LockeJaw, and so on. Wannabee faggots, you know.

Calling someone who is debating so-called "gay marriage" a homosexual is standard operating procedure for libturds, diaper lord.

Now you know you are lying.

It is the far right tards, the reactionary loons, and the funny anarcho commies who say that.

Nope. It's always the libturds in forums like this one who accuse people of being homosexual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

States have the authority do pass such laws. The federal government doesn't. I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.

Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.

 

[alan1]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

That's a retarded question.
It's like asking if a Mosque should be forced to accommodate for a Catholic wedding.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually that is the American way: all of us, including bripatty, want to tell everyone else how to live.

However the responsible right to responsible left have the Constitution on this one.

No, that isn't the American way. At least it wasn't until quite recently. That's how we know this country is swirling down the toilet bowl. It's actually the Stalinist way. You have to despise freedom to want to make everything you dislike or disapprove of illegal. I have no desire to tell you how to live. You can continue wallowing in your own shit for as long as you like.

An anarcho commie like you certainly does believe in making others do want you want.

ROFL! How do you figure that? I'm dying to see your "logic" behind this claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus wouldn't turn them away from his person..but he might turn them away from the steps of the church, if he believed they were there for some other purpose than to glorify God. He wasn't very accommodating to people who exploited the church

He turned away the money lenders, but accepted the prostitute, remember?

You will notice, however, that when He accepted people despite their sins, He did still include the caveat, "Go and sin no more." He accepted THEM, not their behaviors.

He also instructed to not judge one another but instead to love one another as thy self.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't understand. The question isn't whether something is or isn't bigotry. The question is whether or not you have the right to force people to adhere to YOUR personal moral standards. You don't, nor should you.

Then you agree that gays have no right to force someone else to adhere to their personal moral standards.

Silly reactionary Equal right to personal and civil liberty is not subject to opinion.

Step along.

You have no right to force anyone to accept your lifestyle, do business with you or serve you in any way.

 

[Ibentoken]

No social experiments in school. Teach.

Agreed. When public schools stop graduating classes with a large percentage of students who are functionally illiterate and couldn't figure sales tax for themselves if their lives depended on it, perhaps we can discuss the possibility of them teaching other things. I don't believe I want questions of morality addressed by a group of incompetent boobs who can't adequately address 2 + 2 and subject/predicate.

What you think is immaterial to the subject.

Such a cute little nazi.

 

[bripat9643]

States have the authority do pass such laws. The federal government doesn't. I think most state laws were passed under threat by the federal government if they didn't.

Of course the federal government has such a role enforcing nondiscrimination in accordance with the 14th amendment.

Nope. The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws. It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.